Ryder Cup 2008

And it's over. We were behind from start to finish and never really in it. There wasn't much between the two sides but the difference was the putting. All the Yanks seemed to make every single putt all week and really only Poulter and McDowell ever made any for us that were longer than tap ins. The senior players failed to step up with Garcia, Westwood and Harrington not managing 1 win between them and I guess that was the major difference.

He's got a right to be gutted. 4 points out of 5 and ended up comprehensively losing. I wouldn't have had Monty. He's been poor for a couple of years now and would only have been in on name. He was quite lucky to be picked last time, didn't deserve it on form. I'd certainly have had Clarke over Casey though and I was always happy with Poulter being there which was justified. Probably my favourite player being a fellow Gooner.

Faldo was a poor captain overall I felt. Didn't seem to be talking to and encouraging his players much on the course like Azinger was. He always seemed to be in the background while Olazabal (who will surely be capitain next time) seemed to be the voice. He probably made a mistake not picking Clarke and many of his selections during the competition were poor, particularly some of the pairings but also the order for singles. The best player of the week and 2 most senior players should have been on the course first, not last when it was all over and the worst player of the week should not have gone out 1st. Easy to say in hindsight though. Roll on 2010.

I think the order for the singles was good actually. I mean, we were coming from behind, so had to rely on the other players, and not just the on form ones, so I think it makes sense to put the better players at the end when there's more pressure. That is, the only chance of winning was to do well at the start giving us a chance of winning it at the end.If he'd have put the best at the start, it might have drawn us level halfway through, but it'd be far harder for the players at the end to do well at the end when the real pressure is on.

True. I guess it's hard to decide what's right and it's always easy to say it was wrong in hindsight. I'd still be sending our best and most in form player out first though. Poulter should have gone out first and got us off to a good start IMO. Garcia had probably been the worst player over both teams and never should have been first out on the course. There needs to be an even spread throughout and I think we had all our weakest performing players first so by the time the in form players like Poulter and McDowell won, it was already all over.

But what's the difference? You need the not so good players doing well too, since we're starting behind the USA, so what does it matter if they play first or last? The only difference I can think of is that there'll be more pressure at the end, so it makes sense to have the best last.

Well I think when you see/hear your teammates winning in front of you, confidence/morale and momentum flows through the rest of the team. If everyone in front of you is losing like what happened today, there's just too much left to do, even for the best players. It makes more sense getting off to a good start to me. If everyone is winning early on, I think there's less pressure late on. If all the early matches are lost, there has to be more pressure later on since every shot becomes so vital. Of course, the ideal is for everyone to win but if it were me I would make sure we have the best chance of getting off to a great start and winning the early matches, leaving much less pressure on the later ones. To me it just doesn't make sense leaving the players you would be banking on for when it could all be over. Get the points on the board ASAP to put the pressure on the opposition. Points on the board are surely always better than potential points later on.

The point you make about momentum I understand, but I still think it's debatable whether that is enough of a reason to play the worse players at the end when every shot can feel like deciding the tournament - i.e. a very pressurised situation.The point about it perhaps being all over before the best players have a chance doesn't make sense though, for the reason I've said already, that so what? If the other players aren't doing well, what does it matter if its all over before the best players play? We'd lose anyway!

The point about it all being over is connected with momentum and all that. If the best players are out first and win, then the weaker players gain morale and perhaps play better later on. If the weaker players are out first and lose, there feels like too much to do for those later on and morale may fall as they begin to feel it's over before they can influence anything.

It should be noted though that the words "weaker" and "worst" players are a bit harsh for this competition since the teams are largely (except possibly for a couple of captain's picks) comprised of the world's elite players. "Out of form" or "performing poorly" are more correct. I would just personally prefer to give my team the best chance of getting off to a good start and having that morale flow through the team rather than more likely leaving an almost impossible task all up to the last few. Best way I can put it.

As a side note, has there ever been an issue in any sport that we have agreed on?!

I hear what you say, but I'm not convinced. There's another point too, that the order he put them out was largely in the positions the players felt most comfortable in when he discussed it with them beforehand.Anyway, it's all over. We'll just have to wait till 2010 now!

I wouldn't worry about disagreeing with me, I talk so much crap! But we have agreed few times in the cricket and football threads.